Next Article in Journal
Ultrastructure of the Olfactory Sensilla across the Antennae and Maxillary Palps of Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae)
Next Article in Special Issue
Differences in the Susceptibility to Commercial Insecticides among Populations of the Lesser Mealworm Alphitobius diaperinus Collected from Poultry Houses in France
Previous Article in Journal
Behavioral Manipulation for Pest Control
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Two Formulations of Chlorantraniliprole as Maize Protectants for the Management of Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Detection of Phosphine Resistance in Field Populations of Four Key Stored-Grain Insect Pests in Pakistan

by
Waqas Wakil
1,*,
Nickolas G. Kavallieratos
2,*,
Muhammad Usman
1,
Sehrish Gulzar
1 and
Hamadttu A. F. El-Shafie
3
1
Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
2
Laboratory of Agricultural Zoology and Entomology, Department of Crop Science, Agricultural University of Athens, 75 Iera Odos str., 11855 Athens, Greece
3
Date Palm Research Center of Excellence, King Faisal University, Hofuf, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2021, 12(4), 288; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040288
Submission received: 4 March 2021 / Revised: 19 March 2021 / Accepted: 22 March 2021 / Published: 26 March 2021

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The resistance of coleopteran stored-product pests to phosphine fumigation is becoming a global phenomenon. However, there is limited literature available and a lack of knowledge on this issue in Pakistan. Thus, in the current study, we estimated the status of phosphine resistance among ten populations of Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae), Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae), originated from different regions of Pakistan. Laboratory-susceptible populations of all insect species were also considered in the tests. Concentration–response bioassays were conducted for each insect species. All of the tested populations of each species were found to be resistant to phosphine. However, they varied with regard to their levels of resistance. Overall, R. dominica exhibited the highest resistance level, followed by T. castaneum, T. granarium and S. granarius. Although phosphine is effective against several stored-product pests, the development of resistance may lead to failures in its application in Pakistan.

Abstract

In Pakistan, the control of stored-product insect pests mainly relies on the use of phosphine gas along with other control tactics. The aim of this study was to determine the level of phosphine resistance among ten differently located populations of the lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae), the granary weevil, Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and the khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). Laboratory-susceptible populations of all insect species were also considered in the experiments. Concentration–response bioassays were conducted for each species. All of the tested populations (10 out of 10) of each species were found to be resistant to phosphine, but varied in their level of resistance. Probit analysis estimated LC50 at 2.85, 1.90, 2.54 and 2.01 ppm for laboratory-susceptible populations of R. dominica, S. granarius, T. castaneum and T. granarium, respectively. Against R. dominica, the highest and lowest resistance levels were observed in the Rahim Yar Khan (LC50 at 360.90 ppm) and Rawalpindi (LC50 at 210.98 ppm) populations, respectively. These resistant populations were 126.67- and 74.02-fold more resistant than the laboratory population. The Multan and Lahore populations of S. granarius exhibited the maximum (LC50 at 122.81 ppm) and minimum (LC50 at 45.96 ppm) resistance levels, respectively, i.e., they were 64.63- and 24.18-fold more resistant than the laboratory population. The Layyah population of T. castaneum showed the maximum resistance level (LC50 at 305.89 ppm) while the lowest was observed in the Lahore population (LC50 at 186.52 ppm), corresponding to 120.42- and 73.43-fold more resistant than the laboratory population, respectively. Regarding T. granarium, the Layyah population showed the maximum resistance level (LC50 at 169.99 ppm) while the Lahore population showed the minimum resistance (LC50 at 74.50 ppm), i.e., they were 84.57- and 37.06-fold more resistant than the laboratory population, respectively. Overall, R. dominica presented the highest resistance level, followed by T. castaneum, T. granarium and S. granarius. The current study suggests that the application of phosphine may not be an adequate control strategy for the management of the above tested insect pests in Pakistan.

1. Introduction

Control tactics applied in grain commodities before storage include the removal of grain debris and the application of insecticides [1]. Although synthetic insecticides act as efficient management tools that provide quick control of insect pests, they can have negative impact on humans’ health and the environment [2,3]. The overuse or improper use of insecticides may trigger the development of resistance to insecticides [4]. Specifically, due to heavy exposure to chemical insecticides, stored-grain insects have developed resistance to major classes of insecticides, e.g., pyrethroids and organophosphates [5,6,7,8]. Resistance to certain chemical insecticides, such as fenitrothion, pirimiphos-methyl and malathion, has been investigated in the lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae), the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) [9,10]. Cases of resistance to pyrethroids have been recorded in the last two decades in S. zeamais [11,12,13,14]. The extensive spread of resistant populations of S. zeamais through grain trade within Brazil has been identified as the main issue leading to the development of insecticidal resistance [12,14]. Perez Medoza [15] also observed resistance to permethrin and deltamethrin in Mexican strains of S. oryzae. In Australia, the saw-toothed grain beetle, Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.) (Coleoptera: Silvanidae), was found to be resistant to frequently used insecticides (e.g., chlorpyrifos-methyl, pirimiphos-methyl and fenitrothion) [16].
Fumigation with phosphine is widely used as an important method of protection of stored commodities against different insect pests. It is inexpensive, has fewer residual effects than contact insecticides, is easily applicable and represents an ideal fumigant gas that can be applied to a wide range of stored commodities and structures (e.g., warehouses, silos, bag stacks, bunkers, cereal mills and ships during transport) [17,18,19,20,21]. Additionally, phosphine has been globally trusted as a food-safe and residue-free treatment for stored grains [22]. However, the repeated use of this fumigant in storage facilities has led to the development of phosphine resistance in major stored-grain insect species [23].
During the 1970s, Champ and Dyte [24] conducted the first global survey related to phosphine resistance and documented that several main stored-grain insect pests exhibited phosphine resistance across different countries [23]. Previous studies have documented the absence, and presence, of phosphine resistance in populations of pests and revealed additional information about the existence of two phenotypes of resistance (strong and weak) in insect individuals [23,25,26,27,28]. The weak and strong resistance phenotypes are associated with 10- to 50-fold and ≥100-fold higher concentrations of phosphine, respectively, than the concentrations reported to be needed to suppress susceptible insects in the cases of the rusty grain beetle, Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens) (Coleoptera: Laemophloeidae), R. dominica, S. oryzae and T. castaneum [22,29,30]. Recent studies confirmed the high incidence of phosphine resistance in major stored-grain pests at various locations around the world [25,26,27,31,32,33]. Opit et al. [26] determined that the resistance frequencies in T. castaneum and R. dominica were considerably higher than those found twenty years earlier at the same sites studied by Zettler and Cuperus [34]. More recent studies in North America reported that almost half of 25 studied T. castaneum populations exhibited phosphine resistance [35], while 4 out of 14 populations of adults and 9 out of 14 populations of eggs of O. surinamensis were also resistant to this fumigant [33].
Rhyzopertha dominica, the granary weevil, Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and T. castaneum cause considerable damage to numerous types of stored commodities in food warehouses, cereal-processing facilities and retail stores worldwide [36,37,38,39,40]. The khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae), is an extremely dangerous invasive pest of stored products of plant and animal origin [41,42,43,44]. It exists in Asia, Europe and Africa, but has also been intercepted in the USA and Australia [45,46]. Currently, it is categorized as a quarantine pest in Belarus, Canada, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, the USA and other countries [46]. Rhyzopertha dominica, S. granarius and T. granarium are primary feeders, i.e., they can easily damage whole kernels, while T. castaneum is a secondary feeder, i.e., it mostly prefers damaged, either mechanically or by the activity of primary pests, kernels [36]. Trogoderma granarium larvae accelerate the damage of sound kernels when 10–25% cracked kernels are present [47]. Despite the fact that the aforementioned pests are present in Pakistan [48,49,50], there is limited knowledge regarding their resistance to phosphine. For example, Ahmedani et al. [51] assessed two populations of T. granarium from just one district of Pakistan to detect their level of phosphine resistance. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to determine the level of phosphine resistance among differently geographically distributed populations of R. dominica, S. granarius, T. castaneum and T. granarium in Pakistan.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Test Insect Populations

Wheat-grain samples were collected from wheat-storage structures of ten different geographical regions of Pakistan, i.e., Sargodha, Multan, Faisalabad, Bahawalpur, Rawalpindi, Layyah, Lahore, Rahim Yar Khan, Jhang and Gujranwala (Figure 1). Six storage facilities were sampled per area. Within each storage facility, quantities of 500 g of wheat were taken from 5 different points. The wheat samples were mixed to make a new sample of 2.5 kg that was put inside a zip lock bag and transferred to the laboratory. The samples were sieved to separate the insects [52]. The collected R. dominica, S. granarius, T. granarium and T. castaneum adults were identified. The numbers of the collected insects ranged between 45 and 230 individuals per species and were used to start cultures. All species were cultured for at least seven generations in order to produce enough individuals for the experiments [26]. The laboratory strains of these insect pests were obtained from the Microbial Control Laboratory in the Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. The laboratory population had been reared for more than 10 years without being exposed to any chemical insecticides, including phosphine. Sitophilus granarius and R. dominica were reared on wheat at 25 °C, in 65% relative humidity, in complete darkness. Trogoderma granarium was maintained on wheat at 30 °C, in 65% relative humidity, in complete darkness. Tribolium castaneum was cultured on wheat flour with 5% brewer’s yeast at 25 °C, in 65% relative humidity, in complete darkness.

2.2. Phosphine Gas Generation

The phosphine gas was generated using the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) protocol [53]. The apparatus used for the phosphine generation included a beaker with 5 L capacity, an aluminum phosphide tablet, a collection tube (cylinder), an inverted funnel and muslin cloth. One side of the collection tube was sealed with an airtight rubber stopper that was filled with a 5% solution of H2SO4. Additionally, half of the beaker was filled with a 5% solution of H2SO4. The collection tube was carefully placed on the beaker, over the inverted funnel, without any loss of H2SO4 from the collecting tube. Before the generation of phosphine gas, all of the air was removed from the collecting tube using a syringe. The aluminum phosphide tablet was carefully wrapped with muslin cloth and put under the inverted funnel. The phosphine gas was collected in the collection tube on the underside of the inverted funnel. As the funnel filled with gas, the solution level of H2SO4 decreased. When the collection tube was filled with gas, a volume of 5 mL was taken with an airtight syringe and injected into the sealed desiccators. Then, 50 mL of gas were taken from the desiccators and injected into a phosphine meter to measure its concentration (Silo Check Phosphine Monitor, The Canary Company Pty. Ltd., Lane Cove, NSW, Australia).

2.3. Bioassays

For monitoring of resistance among different stored-grain insect pests, FAO method No. 16 [53] was followed. Adult R. dominica, S. granarius or T. castaneum (less than two weeks old) and adult T. granarium (less than 24 h old), of mixed-sex ratios, were used in the tests. From each field and laboratory insect population, 50 adult individuals were separately put in 4 glass vials (1.2 cm in diameter by 4.5 cm in height). The four glass vials (with one vial representing one species from one location) were grouped together with a rubber band and similar vials were prepared for the rest of the nine populations and placed in a 3.8 L glass jar prior to the introduction of phosphine gas (50 individuals of each species per vial × 4 species (= 200 adults per location) × 10 locations = 2000 individuals per jar). Seven concentrations (50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 ppm) of phosphine were used for the field populations and each concentration within one jar represents one treatment. There were 40 vials in one jar and a total seven jars for seven concentrations. Each insect species of the laboratory populations was exposed to seven (1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 ppm) phosphine concentrations. Thus, there were four vials in a single jar. Lower concentrations of phosphine were tested in the case of laboratory populations since they are highly susceptible to chemical insecticides. For each location, the same number of adults was placed inside vials in a single jar, without any treatment, to serve as controls. These vials were covered with muslin cloth and wrapped at the top with a rubber band. The muslin cloth promoted the entry of phosphine gas into the vials and also restricted the escape of insects. A small quantity of diet (0.5 g wheat) was added into each vial. The airtight jar served as a fumigation chamber with a metal screw lid at the center, equipped with a port connected to a rubber injection septum for the entrance and sampling of phosphine gas. Before the lid was screwed onto the jar, a rubber gasket was fitted inside it and a thin layer of vacuum grease was applied to the seal between the metal lid and the top of the edges of the jars to ensure the chamber was gas-tight. The gas was introduced into the jars through the rubber septum with the help of a gas-tight syringe, after removing an equal amount of air with the syringe. The maintenance of a relative humidity of up to 70% was achieved via the addition of two drops of water inside the jar. The jars were maintained inside a chamber at 25 °C for the bioassay. Twenty hours later, all vials were removed from the jars and were kept at 25 °C, in 70% relative humidity. Seven days post-application, all insects in the vials were counted and classified as live or dead [54]. Dead individuals were placed inside Petri dishes lined with filter paper, which was previously moistened with 0.5 mL of distilled water [26]. These individuals were inspected again after 24 h for possible recoveries. Each treatment (phosphine concentration) included 21 jars (7 treatment jars × 3 replications). The whole experiment was conducted twice by preparing new vials, wheat diet and insects each time (six replications totally).

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Mortality in controls was corrected using Abbott’s [55] formula, which was <5% for all species [28,54]. Data were analyzed using PROC PROBIT from SAS version 9.1 [56]. Lethal concentrations including LC50 and 95% fiducial limits were determined for each tested population from each location. Resistance ratios (RRs) were assessed by dividing the LC50 values of tested insecticides by their respective susceptible population.

3. Results

3.1. Resistance in R. dominica

The current study revealed that all tested populations collected from different geographical regions were found to be resistant to phosphine with reference to the laboratory population. However, the tested populations exhibited variable levels of resistance to phosphine. Probit analysis estimated that the LC50 for the laboratory population was 2.85 ppm. The Rahim Yar Khan population was the most resistant with LC50 at 360.90 ppm, i.e., it was 126.67-fold more resistant than the laboratory population. The population with the lowest resistance was obtained from Rawalpindi with LC50 at 210.98 ppm, i.e., it was 74.02-fold more resistant when compared with the laboratory population. For all other cases, LC50 ranged between 234.05 and 333.37, i.e., an 82.12- and 116.97-fold higher resistance than the laboratory population, in Lahore and Multan, respectively (Table 1).

3.2. Resistance in S. granarius

The populations of S. granarius that were collected from different geographical regions exhibited resistance to phosphine with reference to the laboratory-susceptible population. Although all of the test populations were found to be resistant to phosphine, they showed variable levels of resistance. Probit analysis evaluated the LC50 for the laboratory population at 1.90 ppm. The Multan population was the most resistant population with LC50 at 122.81 ppm, i.e., it was 64.63-fold more resistant when compared with the laboratory population, followed by the Jhang, Layyah and Bahawalpur populations, having LC50 values of 119.37, 107.29 and 93.72 ppm, i.e., they were 62.82-, 56.46- and 49.32-fold more resistant than the laboratory population, respectively (Table 2).

3.3. Resistance in T. castaneum

The tested T. castaneum populations were resistant to phosphine in relation to the laboratory population. Probit analysis revealed that the LC50 was 2.54 ppm for the laboratory population. Of the different populations, those from Layyah and Lahore showed the highest and lowest resistance levels with LC50 values of 305.89 and 186.52 ppm, i.e., they were 120.42- and 73.43-fold more resistant when compared with the laboratory population, respectively. The LC50 levels of all other tested populations ranged between 202.99 (Faisalabad) and 275.91 ppm (Jhang), i.e., between 79.91- and 108.62-fold more resistant compared with the laboratory population (Table 3).

3.4. Resistance in T. granarium

As in the previous species, all examined populations of T. granarium were found to be resistant to phosphine in relation to the laboratory-susceptible population. Probit analysis revealed that the LC50 for the laboratory population was 2.01 ppm. The Layyah T. granarium population was the most resistant, having LC50 at 169.99 ppm, i.e., it was 84.57-fold more resistant than the laboratory population, followed by the Jhang, Bahawalpur and Multan populations, which had LC50 values of 145.23, 131.11 and 127.21 ppm, i.e., they were 72.25-, 65.22- and 63.28-fold more resistant than the laboratory population, respectively (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Knowledge of the resistance status among different insect pests is an important issue because it influences the community to alternate the use of chemical insecticides with others that demonstrate a different mode of action [23]. During the present study, 10 out of 10 populations of R. dominica, T. castaneum, S. granarius and T. granarium, originating from different geographical localities, were found to be resistant to phosphine. In previous studies, Alam et al. [57] and Ahmad et al. [58] reported phosphine resistance in T. castaneum, R. dominica, S. oryzae and T. granarium populations collected from two remote areas of Pakistan. Surprisingly, both publications reported almost identical data for all tested insect populations. Therefore, the results of both studies should be taken into consideration with extreme caution. However our study reports phosphine resistance in insect pests from numerous areas in Pakistan, where there is no published literature available. We also report phosphine resistance in S. granarius for the first time in the country. In the USA, 4 out of 11 populations of T. castaneum collected from California were found to be resistant to phosphine, with resistance frequencies ranging between 42 and 100% [59]. Opit et al. [26] determined that eight out of nine (89%) and five out of five (100%) populations of T. castaneum and R. dominica from ten different counties of Oklahoma were found to be resistant to phosphine. Cato et al. [35] found that 12 out of 25 populations of T. castaneum collected from the USA and Canada were resistant to phosphine, with resistance frequencies ranging from 2–100%. In Brazil, phosphine resistance was also recorded in all 22 (100%) of the different populations of S. zeamais studied [60]. The occurrence of phosphine resistance might be due to the presence of a resistance gene in the population, and also by the selection pressure from phosphine application. The flight activity of adults and the shipment of commodities that contained insect pests with the resistant gene are held responsible for gene flow, increasing phosphine resistance [61].
Phosphine resistance at least 100 times higher than susceptible populations has been recorded in different continents including Africa, Asia, Australia and South America [25,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71]. In Pakistan, Ahmedani et al. [51] recorded a 2.54–3.98-fold increase in resistance level in two populations of T. granarium, collected from two remote areas of the Rawalpindi district, compared with a susceptible population. The authors concluded that the historical application of phosphine gas in these locations could not explain the low level of phosphine resistance. However, in the present study, the observed resistance to phosphine is 84.57-fold higher in T. granarium. Although the sampled locations in our study are different from the aforementioned study, resistance to phosphine has increased with time. The trade of infested grains among areas that host storage facilities results in the spread of resistance genes among insects’ populations, and consequently leads to the increased resistance in an area [35,61]. Opit et al. [26] reported LC99 at 377.49 and 3430.8 ppm for resistant T. castaneum and R. dominica populations, respectively, from Oklahoma, which was much higher compared with Zettler and Cuperus [34], who determined their resistance levels 21 years before (i.e., 9.2 and 6.6 ppm respectively). The different level of resistance ratios among different populations of the same species, as observed in this study, might be due to their genetic diversity [72,73] and distinct geographical areas [35]. The elevated frequency of phosphine applications in a given area is associated with low genetic diversities of stored-product coleopterans, compared with areas with less frequent applications of phosphine, due to the suppression of low frequency haplotypes [74,75].
In Pakistan, different types of storage structures, including conventional house-type warehouses (“godowns”), hexagonal bins, binishells, bunkers, concrete/steel silos and temporary open storage (“ganjis”), are used to store wheat commodities. Conventional warehouses hold almost 70% of stored grains, followed by binishells at 13%, hexagonal bins at 7%, bunkers at 6% and concrete/steel silos at 4%. More than 60% of wheat is stored in bags on outdoor mats and covered by polythene [76]. Phosphine is a common fumigant for treating grains and the overuse of a single fumigant, as well as underdosing, can be a cause of the emergence of resistance in stored-grain insect pests. The most resistant insect populations originated from the southern part of Pakistan (e.g., Layyah, Multan and Rahim Yar Khan) where very hot summers prevail. Nayak et al. [77] reported that warm temperatures favor the elevated population growth of insect pests that are associated with the appearance of strongly resistant populations. Furthermore, a number of additional factors might be responsible for the increase in resistance to phosphine, e.g., leaky storage structures that lead to underdosing of phosphine, no phosphine-concentration monitoring during fumigation, exclusive reliance upon a single type of fumigation, little or no focus on integrated pest management at the farm level and insect movement through the commodity trade [12,25,33,78]. The mechanism involved in phosphine resistance is that of resistant individuals receiving lower or overused phosphine gas, compared with susceptible ones [4,79,80,81,82].
Our findings determined different levels of phosphine resistance, weak and strong, among the tested species. Four populations (i.e., Lahore, Gujranwala, Rawalpindi and Rahim Yar Khan) of S. granarius presented weaker resistance compared with the other insect pest populations. In the current study, the most resistant population of R. dominica had LC50 at 360.90 ppm after 20 h, which equate to 7,218 ppm per h to kill the insect population. This gas concentration should be maintained under airtight conditions. However, it is not possible to retain such high concentrations of phosphine due to leaky and poor storage conditions in Pakistan. Thus, it is difficult to attain the required level of phosphine concentration, leading to resistance in insect pests. This is an issue that encourages the replacement of phosphine with alternative approaches for the sustainable management of stored-grain insect pests in Pakistan. For the first time Collins et al. [83] described different levels of phosphine resistance in insects and detected two levels of resistance in R. dominica, i.e., weak resistance, corresponding to a 23-fold increase, and strong resistance, corresponding to >100-fold increase. Similarly to our findings, Afful et al. [23] reported weak and strong resistance among populations of R. dominica originating from North America. The authors concluded that the low resistant population ranged between 5.2- to 9.5-fold higher resistance while the strong resistant population exhibited 100.2- to 595.9-fold higher resistance when compared with the susceptible population. Schlipalius et al. [72] elaborated that insects have a distinct weak resistant phenotype which is homozygous to the resistance alleles on gene locus (usually stated as rph1). However, the strong resistant phenotype requires the insect to be homozygous at rph1 as well as at the second locus for resistance (referred to as rph2), and the two loci work synergistically to indicate the strong resistant phenotype.
The phosphine concentrations obtained during our study were much higher than those recommended against R. dominica, T. castaneum, T. granarium and S. granarius. For instance, Opit et al. [26] found that LC99 ranged between 377 and 3431 ppm against T. castaneum and R. dominica 72 h post-exposure period. Additionally, Gautam et al. [20] determined LC99 at 1030.7 ppm for killing the eggs of the most resistant population of O. surinamensis from the USA, compared with the 28.4 ppm required to kill the eggs of the susceptible laboratory population after 72 h of exposure interval. Considering the aforementioned issues, there are some management approaches that need to be adopted to overcome the phosphine resistance. An important step is to construct a “national-resistance-monitoring program” [61] by recording the occurrence of resistance in different stored-product insect species in different regions of Pakistan, according to Ahmedani et al. [51] and the current study. Next, the recommended phosphine concentrations should be revised on the basis of laboratory and field trials [67,69]. Other management tactics involve eradication of the resistant populations through extended exposure periods to phosphine, an increase in the concentration of phosphine, proper sealing of storage facilities, the replacement of old phosphine application equipment, enhancement of grain turning, application of grain protectants, sanitization of storage facilities, implementation of residual insecticides, monitoring of populations of pests through inspection and sampling, as well as the use of alternative gases (e.g., sulfuryl fluoride) [68,69,71].

5. Conclusions

Our study is the first comprehensive report on the detection of the level of phosphine resistance in 10 different populations of R. dominica, T. castaneum, T. granarium and S. granarius collected from geographically distinct districts of Pakistan. Our findings revealed that all tested species and populations are resistant to phosphine fumigation—therefore alternative management strategies should be pursued. We detected variable levels of phosphine resistance among the tested insect pests. The frequency and prevalence of resistant individuals indicate widespread insufficiency of fumigation practices and a high incidence of improperly sealed storage facilities. Thus, we recommend improvements in storage practices and structures, as well as the implementation of resistance-management programs. Furthermore, plans at the national level should be elaborated in order to moderate the resistance to phosphine—retaining this fumigant as a feasible stored-grain pest-management tool.

Author Contributions

Designed research, W.W.; methodology, W.W.; data curation, W.W. and M.U.; formal analysis, W.W. and M.U.; performed research, M.U.; writing—review and editing, W.W., N.G.K., M.U., S.G. and H.A.F.E.-S.; supervision, W.W.; funding acquisition, W.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Agricultural Linkages Program CS-097, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (ALP-PARC), Islamabad, Pakistan.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Paul Schliekelman (University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA), Shaohui Wu and Xuelin Luo (statistical consultant) (University of Georgia, Tifton, GA, USA) and Muhammad Khalid Bashir (University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan) for their suggestions and technical guidance in data analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arthur, F.H. Efficacy of combinations of methoprene and deltamethrin as long-term commodity protectants. Insects 2019, 10, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Phillips, T.W.; Thoms, E.M.; DeMark, J.; Walse, S. Fumigation. In Stored Product Protection; Hagstrum, D.W., Phillips, T.W., Cuperus, G., Eds.; Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS, USA, 2012; pp. 157–177. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wijayaratne, L.K.W.; Rajapakse, R.H.S. Effects of spinosad on the heat tolerance and cold tolerance of Sitophilus oryzae L. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Rhyzopertha dominica F. (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 77, 84–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Opit, G.; Collins, P.J.; Daglish, G.J. Resistance management. In Stored Product Protection; Hagstrum, D.W., Phillips, T.W., Cuperus, G., Eds.; Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS, USA, 2012; pp. 143–155. [Google Scholar]
  5. Pimentel, M.A.G.; Faroni, L.R.A.; Tótola, M.R.; Guedes, R.N.C. Phosphine resistance, respiration rate and fitness consequences in stored-product insects. Pest Manag. Sci. 2007, 63, 876–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Rossi, E.; Cosimi, S.; Loni, A. Insecticide resistance in Italian populations of Tribolium flour beetles. Bull. Insectol. 2010, 63, 251–285. [Google Scholar]
  7. Daglish, G.J.; Nayak, M.K. Prevalence of resistance to deltamethrin in Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) in eastern Australia. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 78, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Attia, M.A.; Wahba, T.F.; Shaarawy, N.; Moustafa, F.I.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Dewer, Y. Stored grain pest prevalence and insecticide resistance in Egyptian populations of the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and the rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae (L.). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 87, 101611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Guedes, R.N.C.; Lima, J.O.G.; Santos, J.P.; Cruz, C.D. Inheritance of deltamethrin resistance in a Brazilian strain of maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Mots.). Int. J. Pest Manag. 1994, 40, 103–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guedes, R.N.C.; Lima, J.O.G.; Santos, J.P.; Cruz, C.D. Resistance to DDT and pyrethroids in Brazilian populations of Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 1995, 31, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lorini, I.; Galley, D.J. Deltamethrin resistance in Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae), a pest of stored grain in Brazil. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1999, 35, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fragoso, D.B.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Rezende, S.T. Glutathione S-transferase detoxification as a potential pyrethroid resistance mechanism in the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2003, 109, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ribeiro, B.M.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Oliveira, E.E.; Santos, J.P. Insecticide resistance and synergism in Brazilian populations of Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2003, 39, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fragoso, D.B.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Peternelli, L.A. Developmental rates and population growth of insecticide resistant and susceptible populations of Sitophilus zeamais. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2005, 41, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Perez Mendoza, J. Survey of insecticide resistance in Mexican populations of maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 1999, 35, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Beckett, S.J.; Evans, D.E.; Morton, R. A comparison of the demographies of pesticide susceptible and resistant strains of Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.) (Coleoptera: Silvanidae) on kibbled wheat. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1996, 32, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bell, C.H. Fumigation in the 21st century. Crop Prot. 2000, 19, 563–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chaudhry, M.Q. Phoshine resistance: A growing threat to an ideal fumigant. Pestic. Outlook 2000, 11, 88–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Phillips, T.W.; Throne, J.E. Biorational approaches to managing stored-product insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2010, 55, 375–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kaur, R.; Nayak, M.K. Developing effective fumigation protocols to manage strongly phosphine-resistant Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens) (Coleoptera: Laemophloeidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 1297–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Holloway, J.C.; Falk, M.G.; Emery, R.N.; Collins, P.J.; Nayak, M.K. Resistance to phosphine in Sitophilus oryzae in Australia: A national analysis of trends and frequencies over time and geographical spread. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2016, 69, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nayak, M.K.; Daglish, G.J.; Phillips, T.W. Managing resistance to chemical treatments in stored products pests. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 2015, 11, 3. [Google Scholar]
  23. Afful, E.; Elliott, B.; Nayak, M.K.; Phillips, T.W. Phosphine resistance in North American field populations of the lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 463–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Champ, B.R.; Dyte, C.E. Report of the FAO Global Survey of Pesticide Susceptibility of Stored Grain Pests; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lorini, I.; Collins, P.J.; Daglish, G.J.; Nayak, M.K.; Pavic, H. Detection and characterisation of strong resistance to phosphine in Brazilian Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2007, 63, 358–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Opit, G.P.; Phillips, T.W.; Aikins, M.J.; Hasan, M.M. Phosphine resistance in Tribolium castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica from stored wheat in Oklahoma. J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 1107–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Nayak, M.K.; Holloway, J.C.; Emery, R.N.; Pavic, H.; Bartlet, J.; Collins, P.J. Strong resistance to phosphine in the rusty grain beetle, Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens) (Coleoptera: Laemophloeidae): Its characterisation, a rapid assay for diagnosis and its distribution in Australia. Pest Manag. Sci. 2013, 69, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nguyen, T.T.; Collins, P.J.; Ebert, P.R. Inheritance and characterization of strong resistance to phosphine in Sitophilus oryzae (L.). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0124335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Afful, E.; Tadesse, T.M.; Nayak, M.K.; Phillips, T.W. High-dose strategies for managing phosphine resistant populations of Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 1683–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Afful, E.; Cato, A.; Nayak, M.K.; Phillips, T.W. A rapid assay for the detection of resistance to phosphine in the lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2021, 91, 101776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, Z.; Schlipalius, D.; Opit, G.; Subramanyam, B.H.; Phillips, T.W. Diagnostic molecular markers for phosphine resistance in U.S. populations of Tribolium castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0121343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Kaur, R.; Subbarayalu, M.; Jagadeesan, R.; Daglish, G.J.; Nayak, M.K.; Naik, H.R.; Ramasamy, S.; Subramanian, C.; Ebert, P.R.; Schlipalius, D.I. Phosphine resistance in India is characterised by a dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase variant that is otherwise unobserved in eukaryotes. Heredity 2015, 115, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Gautam, S.G.; Opit, G.P.; Konemann, C.; Shakya, K.; Hosoda, E. Phosphine resistance in saw-toothed grain beetle, Oryzaephilus surinamensis in the United States. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 89, 101690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zettler, J.L. Influence of resistance of future fumigation technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products, Nicosia, Cyprus, 21–26 April 1996; Donahaye, E.J., Navarro, S., Varnava, A., Eds.; Printco Ltd.: Nicosia, Cyprus, 1997; pp. 445–454. [Google Scholar]
  35. Cato, A.J.; Elliott, B.; Nayak, M.K.; Phillips, T.W. Geographic variation in phosphine resistance among North American populations of the red flour beetle. J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 1359–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Hill, D.S. Pests of Stored Foodstuffs and Their Control; Kluwer Academic Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rees, D. Insects of Stored Products; Manson Publishing: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mahroof, R.M.; Hagstrum, D.W. Biology, behavior, and ecology of insects in processed commodities. In Stored Product Protection; Hagstrum, D.W., Phillips, T.W., Cuperus, G., Eds.; Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS, USA, 2012; pp. 33–44. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mason, L.J.; McDonough, M. Biology, behavior, and ecology of stored grain and legume insects. In Stored Product Protection; Hagstrum, D.W., Phillips, T.W., Cuperus, G., Eds.; Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS, USA, 2012; pp. 7–20. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hagstrum, D.W.; Klejdysz, T.; Subramanyam, B.H.; Nawrot, J. Atlas of Stored-Product Insects and Mites; AACC International: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lowe, S.; Brone, M.; Boudjelas, S.; Poorter De, M. 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species. A Selection from the Global Invasive Species Database; Hollands Printing Ltd.: Auckland, New Zealand, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Drempela, J.D.; Boukouvala, M.C. Invader competition with local competitors: Displacement or co-existence among the invasive khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae), and two other major stored-grain beetles? Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Karagianni, E.S.; Papanikolaou, N.E. Life history of Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) on peeled barley, peeled oats and triticale. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 84, 101515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Boukouvala, M.C.; Tsekos, G.T. Influence of different non-grain commodities on the population growth of Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 81, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Myers, S.W.; Hagstrum, D.W. Quarantine. In Stored Product Protection; Hagstrum, D.W., Phillips, T.W., Cuperus, G., Eds.; Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS, USA, 2012; pp. 297–304. [Google Scholar]
  46. EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). EPPO Global Data Base. Trogoderma granarium. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/TROGGA (accessed on 27 November 2020).
  47. Athanassiou, C.G.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Boukouvala, M.C. Population growth of the khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) on different commodities. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2016, 69, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Islam, M.S.; Shahjahan, M.; Motaleb, M.A.; Hye, M.A. Laboratory evaluation of some indigenous plant extracts against granary weevil, Sitophilus granarius L. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2002, 5, 763–766. [Google Scholar]
  49. Wakil, W.; Schmitt, T. Field trials on the efficacy of Beauveria bassiana, diatomaceous earth and imidacloprid for the protection of wheat grains from four major stored grain insect pests. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2015, 64, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Honey, S.F.; Bajwa, B.; Mazhar, M.S.; Wakil, W. Trogoderma granarium (Everts) (Coleoptera: Dermestidae), an alarming threat to rice supply chain of Pakistan. Int. J. Entomol. Res. 2017, 5, 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ahmedani, M.S.; Shaheen, N.; Ahmedani, M.Y.; Aslam, M. Status of phosphine resistance in khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium (Everts) strains collected from remote villages of Rawalpindi district. Pak. Entomol. 2007, 29, 95–102. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wakil, W.; Ghazanfar, M.U.; Yasin, M. Naturally occurring entomopathogenic fungi Infecting stored grain insect species in Punjab, Pakistan. J. Insect Sci 2014, 14, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Recommended methods for the detection and measurement of resistance of agricultural pests to pesticides. Tentative method for adults of some major pest species of stored cereals, with methyl bromide and phosphine. FAO method no. 16. Plant Protect. Bull. 1975, 23, 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  54. Jagadeesan, R.; Collins, P.J.; Daglish, G.J.; Ebert, P.R.; Schlipalius, D.I. Phosphine resistance in the rust red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): Inheritance, gene interactions and fitness costs. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e31582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Abbott, W.S. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 1925, 18, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/ETS® 9.1 User’s Guide; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  57. Alam, M.S.; Shaukat, S.S.; Ahmed, M.; Iqbal, S.; Ahmad, A. A survey of resistance to phosphine in some coleopterous pests of stored wheat and rice grain in Pakistan. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 1999, 2, 623–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Ali, Q.M.; Abbas, M.; Arif, S. Monitoring of resistance against phosphine in stored grain insect pests in Sindh. Middle East J. Sci. Res. 2013, 16, 1501–1507. [Google Scholar]
  59. Gautam, S.G.; Opit, G.P.; Hosoda, E. Phosphine resistance in adult and immature life stages of Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) populations in California. J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 2525–2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pimentel, M.A.G.; Faroni, L.R.D.A.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Sousa, A.H.; Tótola, M.R. Phosphine resistance in Brazilian populations of Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2009, 45, 71–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hernandez Nopsa, J.F.; Daglish, G.J.; Hagstrum, D.W.; Leslie, J.F.; Phillips, T.W.; Scoglio, C.; Thomas Sharma, S.; Walter, G.H.; Garrett, K.A. Ecological networks in stored grain: Key postharvest nodes for emerging pests, pathogens, and mycotoxins. BioScience 2015, 65, 985–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Mills, K.A. Resistance to the fumigant hydrogen phosphide in some stored-product species associated with repeated inadequate treatments. Mitt. Dtsch. Ges. Allg. Angew. Entomol. 1983, 4, 98–101. [Google Scholar]
  63. Tyler, P.S.; Taylor, R.W.; Rees, D.P. Insect resistance to phosphine fumigation in food warehouses in Bangladesh. Int. Pest Control 1983, 25, 10–13. [Google Scholar]
  64. Taylor, R.W.D.; Halliday, D. The geographical spread of resistance to phosphine by coleopterous pests of stored products. In Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference, Pests and Diseases, Brighton Metropole, UK, 17–20 November 1986; British Crop Protection Council: Thornton Heath, UK, 1986; pp. 607–613. [Google Scholar]
  65. Taylor, R.W.D. Phosphine—A major fumigant at risk. Int. Pest Control 1989, 31, 10–14. [Google Scholar]
  66. Zettler, L.J.; Cuperus, G.W. Pesticide resistance in Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in wheat. J. Econ. Entomol. 1990, 83, 1677–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sayaboc, P.D.; Gibe, A.J.G.; Caliboso, F.M. Resistance of Rhizopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae) to phosphine in the Philippines. Philipp. Entomol. 1998, 12, 91–95. [Google Scholar]
  68. Collins, P.J.; Daglish, G.J.; Nayak, M.K.; Ebert, P.R.; Schlipalius, D.; Chen, W.; Pavic, H.; Lambkin, T.M.; Kopittke, R.; Bridgeman, B.W. Combating resistance to phosphine in Australia. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products, Fresno, CA, USA, 29 October–3 November 2000; Donahaye, E.J., Navarro, S., Leesch, J.G., Eds.; Executive Printing Services: Clovis, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 593–607. [Google Scholar]
  69. Nayak, M.; Holloway, J.; Pavic, H.; Head, M.; Reid, R.; Collins, P. Developing strategies to manage highly phosphine resistant populations of flat grain beetles in large bulk storages in Australia. In Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Stored-Product Protection, Estoril, Portugal, 27 June–2 July; Carvalho, M.O., Fields, P.G., Adler, C.S., Arthur, F.H., Athanassiou, C.G., Campbell, J.F., Fleurat Lessard, F., Flinn, P.W., Hodges, R.J., Isikber, A.A., et al., Eds.; Julius Kühn Institut: Berlin, Germany, 2010; pp. 396–401. [Google Scholar]
  70. Pimentel, M.A.G.; Farroni, L.R.D.A.; da Silva, F.H.; Batista, M.D.; Guedes, R.N.C. Spread of phosphine resistance among Brazilian populations of three species of stored product insects. Neotrop. Entomol. 2010, 39, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Emery, R.N.; Nayak, M.K.; Holloway, J.C. Lessons learned from phosphine resistance monitoring in Australia. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 2011, 3, 6. [Google Scholar]
  72. Schlipalius, D.I.; Valmas, N.; Tuck, A.G.; Jagadeesan, R.; Ma, L.; Kaur, R.; Goldinger, A.; Anderson, C.; Kuang, J.; Zuryn, S.; et al. A core metabolic enzyme mediates resistance to phosphine gas. Science 2012, 338, 807–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nguyen, T.T.; Collins, P.J.; Duong, T.M.; Schlipalius, D.I.; Ebert, P.R. Genetic conservation of phosphine resistance in the rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae (L.). J. Hered. 2016, 107, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. McCulloch, G.A.; Mohankumar, S.; Subramaniam, S.; Sonai Rajan, T.; Rahul, C.; Surendran, R.; Gaurav, R.; Chandrasekaran, S.; Daglish, G.J.; Walter, G.H. Contrasting patterns of phylogeographic structuring in two key beetle pests of stored grain in India and Australia. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 92, 1249–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Thangaraj, S.R.; McCulloch, G.; Subtharishi, S.; Chandel, R.K.; Debnath, S.; Subramaniam, C.; Walter, G.H.; Subbarayalu, M. Genetic diversity and its geographic structure in Sitophilus oryzae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) across India—Implications for managing phosphine resistance. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 84, 101512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Prikhodko, D.; Zrilyi, O. Pakistan. Review of the Wheat Sector and Grain Storage Issues; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  77. Nayak, M.K.; Falk, M.G.; Emery, R.N.; Collins, P.J.; Holloway, J.C. An analysis of trends, frequencies and factors influencing the development of resistance to phoshine in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) in Australia. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2017, 72, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Benhalima, H.; Chaudhry, M.Q.; Mills, K.A.; Price, N.R. Phosphine resistance in stored-product insects collected from various grain storage facilities in Morocco. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2004, 40, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Price, N.R. A comparison of the uptake and metabolism of 32P-radiolabelled phosphine in susceptible and resistant strains of the lesser grain borer (Rhyzopertha dominica). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1981, 69, 129–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Price, N.R. Active exclusion of phosphine as a mechanism of resistance in Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 1984, 20, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chaudhry, M.Q.; Price, N.R. Insect mortality at doses of phosphine which produce equal uptake in susceptible and resistant strains of Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 1990, 26, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chaudhry, M.Q. A review of the mechanisms involved in the action of phosphine as an insecticide and phosphine resistance in stored-product insects. Pestic. Sci. 1997, 49, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Collins, P.J.; Emery, R.N.; Wallbank, B.E. Two decades of monitoring and managing phosphine resistance in Australia. In Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on Stored-Product Protection, York, UK, 22–26 July 2002; Credland, P.F., Armitage, D.M., Bell, C.H., Cogan, P.M., Highley, E., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2003; pp. 570–575. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Map of Pakistan showing the regions of origin for the ten sampled populations of Rhyzopertha dominica, Sitophilus granarius, Tribolium castaneum and Trogoderma granarium tested for phosphine resistance.
Figure 1. Map of Pakistan showing the regions of origin for the ten sampled populations of Rhyzopertha dominica, Sitophilus granarius, Tribolium castaneum and Trogoderma granarium tested for phosphine resistance.
Insects 12 00288 g001
Table 1. Probit analysis of mortality for 10 field-collected populations and a laboratory-susceptible population of Rhyzopertha dominica adults after 20 h of exposure to phosphine. In all cases DF = 5.
Table 1. Probit analysis of mortality for 10 field-collected populations and a laboratory-susceptible population of Rhyzopertha dominica adults after 20 h of exposure to phosphine. In all cases DF = 5.
RegionLC50 (ppm) 95% FLSlopeChi-SquarepInterceptRR a
Sargodha236.32 (163.06–259.16)2.35 ± 0.9978.38<0.01−6.79 ± 1.5882.91
Multan333.37 (112.01–415.37)3.02 ± 0.9236.57<0.01−7.63 ± 1.45116.97
Faisalabad257.99 (23.21–342.38)2.42 ± 0.7671.85<0.01−21.37 ± 1.9890.52
Bahawalpur295.83 (215.23–376.28)2.89 ± 1.4753.86<0.01−7.15 ± 1.90103.80
Rawalpindi210.98 (163.06–259.16)2.28 ± 0.2526.76<0.01−5.31 ± 0.6274.02
Layyah287.72 (173.37–357.61)2.73 ± 0.8662.93<0.01−6.72 ± 1.82100.95
Lahore234.05 (186.14–309.39)2.96 ± 0.1357.91<0.01−7.01 ± 1.9682.12
Rahim Yar Khan360.90 (98.92–441.17)4.19 ± 0.5846.22<0.01−11.09 ± 1.12126.67
Jhang315.36 (206.20–381.26)2.90 ± 1.1947.00<0.01−7.25 ± 1.16110.65
Gujranwala279.88 (171.28–416.52)3.31 ± 0.5678.31<0.01−8.10 ± 1.2198.20
Laboratory2.85 (2.62–3.07)2.48 ± 0.107.440.18−1.13 ± 0.07-
LC: lethal concentration; FL: fiducial limits; RR: resistance ratio; a RR = LC50-resistant population/LC50-susceptible population.
Table 2. Probit analysis of mortality for 10 field-collected populations and a laboratory-susceptible population of Sitophilus granarius adults after 20 h of exposure to phosphine. In all cases DF = 5.
Table 2. Probit analysis of mortality for 10 field-collected populations and a laboratory-susceptible population of Sitophilus granarius adults after 20 h of exposure to phosphine. In all cases DF = 5.
RegionLC50 (ppm) 95% FLSlopeChi-SquarepInterceptRR a
Sargodha86.60 (69.64–103.03)2.20 ± 0.1511.050.05−4.26 ± 0.3445.57
Multan122.81 (89.15–155.13)2.31 ± 0.2426.55<0.01−4.82 ± 0.5664.63
Faisalabad71.26 (54.62–87.26)2.10 ± 0.1511.850.03−3.90 ± 0.3537.50
Bahawalpur93.72 (75.20–111.68)2.15 ± 0.1411.290.04−4.25 ± 0.3449.32
Rawalpindi48.58 (27.28–68.61)2.03 ± 0.2525.18<0.01−3.43 ± 0.5425.56
Layyah107.29 (81.23–132.49)2.33 ± 0.2121.74<0.01−4.73 ± 0.4956.46
Lahore45.96 (28.55–62.43)2.06 ± 0.2118.07<0.01−3.42 ± 0.4724.18
Rahim Yar Khan63.17 (44.80–80.62)2.19 ± 0.2016.79<0.01−3.95 ± 0.44233.24
Jhang119.37 (84.69–152.65)2.25 ± 0.2428.55<0.01−4.68 ± 0.5762.82
Gujranwala66.75 (60.94–80.96)2.11 ± 0.149.920.07−3.85 ± 0.3235.13
Laboratory1.90 (1.51–2.28)2.21 ± 0.1612.230.03−0.61 ± 0.10-
LC: lethal concentration; FL: fiducial limits; RR: resistance ratio; a RR = LC50-resistant population/LC50-susceptible population.
Table 3. Probit analysis of mortality for 10 field-collected populations and a laboratory-susceptible population of Tribolium castaneum adults after 20 h of exposure to phosphine. In all cases DF = 5.
Table 3. Probit analysis of mortality for 10 field-collected populations and a laboratory-susceptible population of Tribolium castaneum adults after 20 h of exposure to phosphine. In all cases DF = 5.
RegionLC50 (ppm) 95% FLSlopeChi-SquarepInterceptRR a
Sargodha223.06 (156.78–298.67)3.79 ± 0.5479.47<0.01−8.91 ± 1.9787.81
Multan261.00 (24.62–343.96)3.38 ± 1.1054.30<0.01−8.16 ± 1.88102.75
Faisalabad202.99 (113.75–260.90)2.75 ± 0.7389.89<0.01−6.36 ±1.5179.91
Bahawalpur245.43 (66.41–341.11)3.17 ± 0.9948.54<0.01−7.59 ± 1.7196.62
Rawalpindi234.63 (141.27–289.47)3.26 ± 1.2967.19<0.01−7.41± 1.3692.37
Layyah305.89 (131.04–374.82)3.73 ± 1.0441.34<0.01−9.27 ± 1.72120.42
Lahore186.52 (110.43–243.79)2.64 ± 0.4332.91<0.01−6.00 ± 1.1073.43
Rahim Yar Khan256.60 (172.34–345.16)3.50 ± 1.4867.50<0.01−8.45 ± 2.87101.02
Jhang275.91 (74.74–355.02)3.24 ± 0.9547.26<0.01−7.91± 2.50108.62
Gujranwala213.24 (189.24–265.19)2.83 ± 0.5086.26<0.01−6.61 ± 1.9183.92
Laboratory2.54 (2.34–2.75)2.41 ± 0.106.350.27−0.98 ± 0.07-
LC: lethal concentration; FL: fiducial limits; RR: resistance ratio; a RR = LC50-resistant population/LC50-susceptible population.
Table 4. Probit analysis of mortality for 10 field-collected populations and a laboratory-susceptible population of Trogoderma granarium adults after 20 h of exposure to phosphine. In all cases DF = 5.
Table 4. Probit analysis of mortality for 10 field-collected populations and a laboratory-susceptible population of Trogoderma granarium adults after 20 h of exposure to phosphine. In all cases DF = 5.
RegionLC50 (ppm) 95% FLSlopeChi-SquarepInterceptRR a
Sargodha86.29 (77.48–94.96)2.15 ± 0.096.390.26−4.16 ± 0.2242.93
Multan127.21 (115.25–139.05)1.95 ± 0.094.480.48−4.11 ± 0.2263.28
Faisalabad100.35 (69.68–129.76)1.75 ± 0.1820.01<0.01−3.51 ± 0.4249.92
Bahawalpur131.11 (100.44–161.00)2.06 ± 0.1818.18<0.01−4.36 ± 0.4465.22
Rawalpindi75.47 (66.65–84.12)1.96 ± 0.094.170.52−3.69 ± 0.2237.54
Layyah169.99 (127.74–212.78)1.98 ± 0.2125.57<0.01−4.42 ± 0.5184.57
Lahore74.50 (19.81–126.43)1.38 ± 0.2853.47<0.01−2.59 ± 0.6737.06
Rahim Yar Khan117.76 (99.48–135.73)2.40 ± 0.1411.000.05−4.97 ± 0.3458.58
Jhang145.23 (103.79–185.91)1.89 ± 0.2125.01<0.01−4.10 ± 0.5072.25
Gujranwala109.19 (100.36–117.92)2.48 ± 0.105.710.33−5.05 ± 0.2354.32
Laboratory2.01 (1.82–2.21)2.20 ± 0.187.810.16−0.67 ± 0.17-
LC: lethal concentration; FL: fiducial limits; RR: resistance ratio; a RR = LC50-resistant population/LC50-susceptible population.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wakil, W.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Usman, M.; Gulzar, S.; El-Shafie, H.A.F. Detection of Phosphine Resistance in Field Populations of Four Key Stored-Grain Insect Pests in Pakistan. Insects 2021, 12, 288. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040288

AMA Style

Wakil W, Kavallieratos NG, Usman M, Gulzar S, El-Shafie HAF. Detection of Phosphine Resistance in Field Populations of Four Key Stored-Grain Insect Pests in Pakistan. Insects. 2021; 12(4):288. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040288

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wakil, Waqas, Nickolas G. Kavallieratos, Muhammad Usman, Sehrish Gulzar, and Hamadttu A. F. El-Shafie. 2021. "Detection of Phosphine Resistance in Field Populations of Four Key Stored-Grain Insect Pests in Pakistan" Insects 12, no. 4: 288. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040288

APA Style

Wakil, W., Kavallieratos, N. G., Usman, M., Gulzar, S., & El-Shafie, H. A. F. (2021). Detection of Phosphine Resistance in Field Populations of Four Key Stored-Grain Insect Pests in Pakistan. Insects, 12(4), 288. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040288

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop